Is Current System of Trade Realistic?

[Vancouver 2010]

It's really a decision between realism and playability. The closer to reality the trading system gets, the more complex it becomes, and the less playable it gets, because people generally don't want to go through some complex means to set up a trade.

 

[Pongui]

Roads generating trade on the city screen is a relic from Civ's ruder youth. Caravans (Civ II) were a poorly implemented addition. I think the trading system of Civ III far better, though it does, like caravans, float detached from the relic.

A nice trade system can be found in Sid Meier"s Colonization. It employed something like the caravan, but these could be automated, so it was more like setting up perpetual trade routes. Vital resources like iron were mined by city workers (in a city window), and then consumed in local production (of things requiring iron) or trucked elsewhere to trade away or use in another city. It wasn't much burden to manage, and a little more automation (as in how Civ III resources automatically flow to the capital) would make it a breeze.

 

[Longasc]

I think it is not realistic, but it has a very good trade-off between realism and playability.

Now take a look at CORRUPTION... now that's something I really worry about, what a fussy and difficult concept!!! -> should be changed completely, all the latest change only broke it or allowed all forms of exploits.

 

[CMcQueeny]

I think that trade should be converted to a percentage & decimal based system, rather than the current whole number one. Under such a system, you would gain a significant amount of flexibility in international trade, and you would also be able to retain the benefits of luxuries whilst still turning a profit on them. Such a change should be easy to implement.

 

[Pongui]

I'll have to disagree with you on that, CMcQueeny. Your suggestion is more realistic, but would take the snap out of play. It would be like tweaking myself, or, between civs, pulling a bungey cord - the more I pull, the more it pulls back. This gets boring after a while, then frustrating, because try as I might, nothing really absolute can happen. Hm. Kind of like real life.

Anyway, most games that folks enjoy a lot (card games, board games, word games, sports, computer games) share this in common: they tend to absolutes. On or off. Up or down. Rock, paper, or scissors. Hard choices.

 

[Trade-peror]

Just wondering, do people usually read an entire thread before posting a reply?

Anyway, I agree with Vancouver2010 that there must be a balance between realism and playability, but I honestly do not think my new system of trade is that complicated, to level where Civ might be unplayable (maybe I have not been clear enough in explaining the system in previous posts?). Also, I agree that increasing realism does increase complexity, but I do not think that complexity necessarily entails unplayability. Compared to many other games, Civ is complex, is it not? Yet it seems quite playable to me...

I have never seen or played Sid Meier's Colonization, so I cannot offer an opinion on it, but it does sound like it has features that I am suggesting (such as Sean Lindstrom's example, the automatic transportation of iron).

Also, by the word "automatic," I mean that it is completely computer controlled, as a game mechanic, not with artifical "intelligence." Therefore, anything I designate "automatic" cannot be manually controlled. Hopefully that clarifies a few of my previous explanations.

Finally, CMcQueeny's idea of decimal trades is an interesting idea, but can be tricky to implement without making the game difficult or tedious to play, perhaps even for most people. However, I know there are many micromanagers would love such a system, therefore I think a reasonable compromise may be to allow it as an option to select while setting up a game.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Are you saying that commerce should be based primarily on how many resources cities can trade with each other? This makes the big civs even stronger, because the large civs have more resources (generally speaking).

I don't see how this would decrease the 'road on every tile' phenomenom, because what else is my workers going to do? I still want roads everywhere for unit movements. If my worker is going to go to a tile to build a mine I would want to a road there, so I'm not wasting worker turns to go back to that tile to railroad it (or change terrain improvements). What about your system and rails? Do you want to scrap the railroad bonus (+1 food, +1 shields depending if you irrigate/mine).

Your idea would certainly increase the need for building a trade network (connecting all your cities by roads), but I think the game currently already gives us enough incentive to do that.

 

[CMcQueeny]

Sean Lindstrom> I can't accept the idea that limiting the trade system to 'absolutes' would make it more enjoyable. If a player genuinely does not like the system, he doesn't have to take advantage of it. Just trade 1.0 units of something and take the usual price! Just like the current ability to automate workers, the more advanced players would learn to take advantage of the new flexibility while newer players would retain the original simplicity. Implementation would be seamless, the user would simply notice that there are a few floating point numbers on the screen, and he would get used to an extra click or two. Everything in this game is based on numbers, so its essentially changing 'int' to 'double' as far as the code is concerned.

 

[Trade-peror]

Bamspeedy, I note that you say my new trade system would make big civs even larger, because they tend to have more resources. That could be true, but I don't always find that to be the case when playing Civ III. But my trade system would actually also allow smaller civs to compete more easily, due to their smaller needs. Maybe I was not clear before, but my new trade system does not have one iron supplying an empire of hundreds of cities any longer...each resource gives a finite amount of itself. In Civ III, that made a source of iron more valuable to a large empire than a small one. My new trade system would force large empires to find several sources, if it wanted every city to have access to a resource, while a small empire could sell its extras to neighbors. This can actually make small civs very powerful if they, in particular, have a monopoly on a resource. They don't have to use very much of it, perhaps, but they can sell them to hungry neighbors for huge sums.

However, I do see your point in how this system may not actually decrease road use, since they provide movement bonuses as well. I agree--my trade system may not decrease road building at all. But for me, at least, it would, maybe because my strategy is just strange. I tend to expand extremely rapidly and any workers I build are sent to (near) the battlefront to facilitate transportation, or sent to build roads to cities not connected to my empire. In the process, I end up with many cities that are connected but not substantially "roaded." Personally, it is annoying to me to have to send back workers to these places to build roads just so they can generate trade. I also don't care much for movement bonuses in such areas, because they are so deep inside my empire. Maybe that is my own strange problem, but in that case my new trade system would decrease the amount of road work.

As for railroads, I think the Civ II purpose is better--shields and trade (from a resource square!) are increased by 50%, I think. Therefore, there is no point to placing railroads on every spot. To boost food, I think the Civ II concept of "farmland" is good, although I didn't like the existence of the "Supermarket" improvement.

My system certainly would make building a trade network even more important. But all (or most) players connect all their cities and resources anyway, so this will not really change much in that sense.

Then, again, I think CMcQueeny's idea of a decimal based system of calculating trade values would be a good idea--but only for those who want it (the micromanagers, I would think). Therefore, I propose that the decimals preference can be set during a the game setup, so those who don't want the additional complications can just turn it off.

But good points, everyone! Finding more to be addressed would be welcome!

 

[Ultraworld]

I don't want to have to deal with having 100 cities trading things between each other

That is the problem. An average game got way too many cities

 

[Ultraworld]

again:
http://www2.vhl.tudelft.nl/~emile/civilization/trade_idea.html

 

[Ultraworld]

roads and railroads are ugly for the landscape. They should only be used for connection to the trade-network

 

[Ultraworld]

because people generally don't want to go through some complex means to set up a trade.

that would be one of the new cool aspects of the game

 

[Trade-peror]

Ultraworld, did you read this entire threadbefore posting? If not, it might clarify some things, because it looks like you also might have misinterpreted some of my ideas (or I was not clear enough). The fact is, I think is difficult to actually do very much managing for my new trade system. Almost everything is automatic--please read one of my earlier posts on what exactly I mean by that term--so the player actually CANNOT do very much. I mean, do you, for example, have a hard time managing luxuries and strategic resources? As far as I know, there is extremely few ways to "manage" or "deal with" those; they are pretty much taken care of by the computer as game mechanics. As such, I don't think my new trade system requires a lot of "managing" or "dealing with."

You also mention that "roads and railroads are ugly for the landscape. They should only be used for connection to the trade-network." I absolutely agree with that! Accordingly, my new system of trade will eliminate the need for roads in "random" places (except if they are for transportation, not trade).

Also, I don't exactly understand what you are referring to as "one of the new cool aspects of the game." Could you please clarify?

 

[Ultraworld]

Ultraworld, did you read this entire threadbefore posting? If not, it might clarify some things, because it looks like you also might have misinterpreted some of my ideas

erm . . . I give you a link to my website with ideas (which are over 6 months old) + some comments.

Could you please clarify?

managing trade is cool. Consider it a game

 

[arthurfear]

There is definately a need to improve sea trade!

People are always complaining about how the naval component of the game is meaningless, when historically, only those powers with strong navies were able to take advantage of world trade (hence the rise of Britain). But in CivIII, you only need a harbour to be able to trade like this, and no naval power at all - more realistic would be to create a system whereby navies were needed to protect trade routes - this is sort of done in the Age of Discovery conquest when you are actually shipping treasure that anyone can capture. Another thing would be to limit the number of harbours a civ can build, so that blockades can realistically be imposed. Often civ's have harbours in every coastal city, and it becomes impractical to build the boats required to cut off the trade. In reality, if a harbour like say New York was cut off, it would cripple the country. Its not like the trade would seamlessly go to other ports as it does in the game...

If trade flowed along specific routes, fortresses would be much more purposeful - and more useful still if there were supply lines behind your armies which could be cut off by the fortress garrison if you just walked around them, as the A.I. always does each time you build one now...

So, defined trade routes would make the game far more realistic, and bring much more strategy to the game, especially on the high seas

 

[Trade-peror]

@Ultraworld:
I agree! Managing trade could be a complete new game by itself, if I really went into detail! But for Civ practicality, I wouldn't do that...

Also, your website has interesting ideas...some of them quite similar to mine. I will look more closely and see if I could integrate some of your suggestions into my new vision of trade.

@arthurfear
I agree that naval trade needs to be elaborated and improved. In terms of my new trade system, I would actually propose making a different, more expensive improvement responsible for ocean trade (harbors should continue to increase food yields in water squares). In other words, some kind of "Commercial Dock"--something that already exists in Conquests, I know--but available much earlier. Actually, how about simply changing Commercial Dock to have the exclusive purpose of allowing sea trade, and also being available early in the game--with Map Making, perhaps? or at least Astronomy, Navigation, or Magnetism. The Dock purpose of increasing commerce in each water square by 1 no longer can apply in my new trade system anyway. With naval trade as the exclusive purpose of the Dock, maybe there will be fewer of them (many players and maybe the AI built harbors for the food increases). Naval blockades would then be easier, and in any case, once a defined route is blocked, the harbor is blockaded unless there is an alternate route available. As I see it, it would therefore occasionally be possible to blockade a Dock city with just a few ships!

As for fortresses controlling certain trade routes, that is perfectly possible with my new trade system, and I would expect the same logic that applies for the naval blockades to apply to land trade as well.

So with my new trade system, essentially every route would be defined!

 

[arthurfear]

That seems to work - I think defined trade routes that could be blocked are a must. Naval power would then be necessary for large-scale trade, which would address the issue of it not being important in Civ. Building a big navy could become a new stategy of equalization for small countries, as they could disrupt and control the trade routes - it is in this way that countries like Portugal, the Netherlands, and eventually England got to be powerful, so if this could be carried into Civ, it would be great!

 

[Trade-peror]

Anyway, in one of the my older posts, I said I that I would get into how this trade system will affect governments. Well, here are some ideas I have at the moment:

Despotism: Reduced production (number of units of a product available for distribution), tile production penalty, and all other effects already in Civ III
Monarchy: Normal production
Republic: Increased production but more limited use of the "Priority List." In other words, the player can no longer simply force the allocation of resources; they can, however, offer a monetary incentive.
Democracy: Most productive, but the "Priority List" requires significant incentives to be effective.
Communism: The economy is "nationalized"--all traded food and shields are equally distributed (or as close as that as possible) to all cities. Consequently, every city will also have essentially the same amount of trade.

As for Feudalism and Fascism, I will need more research to determine a model even remotely similar to that in reality.

Any ideas, comments, or questions about Feudalism, Fascism, or any of the above mentioned are welcome!

 

[Wakboth]

Hmm... It's an interesting idea. I certainly agree that food should be tradeable in some way (excess should be able to be moved to cities that don't have enough for example). However, there's another issue beyond simplicity that must be considered.

When looking at game design, you have to look at more then realism. In fact, almost by definition, games are not totally realistic because games have to be "fair" in some way.

Civ (all the way back through the original) has always had the concept of balancing resources generated by cities. That's why we have three basic resources generated in each square (food, shields, commerce). Each tile generates different amounts of each, and worker actions adjust those amounts (roads add to commerce, irriation to food, mines to shields). Later, government types add more adjustments, and rails add even more.

The point is to make the player have to chose between one type of action and another. If your worker isn't building a road, then he's free to do something else (or you're free to make fewer workers). This affects the game balance at a very low level. So I think roads as they are implemented for internal commerce generation works very well.


As to external trade, I tend to like the abstracted trade mechanism that Civ3 has. I never liked the trade system in Civ1 (yuck. Running caravans from place to place over and over sucked big time). Civ2 was a bit better (run trade to other cities and establish a route just once). But by introducing luxury and strategic resources and allowing them to be traded I think Civ3 has made the system easy enough to manage, but still have a large "balance" effect on the game.

You are correct though that there's no real trade mechanism that generates money. It's all resources instead. However, Civ3 balances this by having far more things that generate money. I've just noticed that money isn't as big an issue as it was in previous versions of the game. How many tip posts have you seen about how to generate <some ludicrous amount of money> each turn using one method or another? Tons. That kind of cash generation was unheard of in Civ1 and Civ2. I'm not sure if that's better or worse to be honest, but your suggestion seems to be aimed at making trade more realistic (which isn't totally bad), while reducing the amount of ugly roads and rails you have to build (which also isn't totally bad). Of course, roads/rails also help you move units around in your territory (pollution would suck really bad if you didn't have a full railsystem in your civ). Folks will still build them for more reasons then just commerce, so you'd need to find some other purpose to fill that need.

I just think that we're stuck with road/rail systems unless there's a totally radical change in Civ4. If we've got to have them anyway, why not use them for a second purpose instead of building a completely new system? Two birds and all that...